We hold up as an example of this serious misrepresentation the multiple accusations of the monthly periodical “Watchman” circulated from Queensland with the catch-cry of returning to the old “Shield” beliefs. Harsh criticism, some of it personal, is aligned against brethren, both alive and deceased, who have contributed much good towards unity in Australia. The magazine itself savours greatly of “jingling phrases” without apparently understanding them. This pattern of polemics was perceived by Bro. Roberts in both E. Turney and J. J. Andrew. For example, both these dissenters attached an entirely different meaning from that of Bro. Roberts to the words “Adamic condemnation”. Then each in turn differed from the other in its application. Both Turney and Andrew viewed it as eternal in its effect, the former with a moral connotation, but the latter with a legal hereditary transmission entitling us all to a violent death because of our natural inheritance in Adam. “Watchman” appears to miss Bro. Roberts’ view and confuses it with Turney’s interpretation, so rejecting it out of hand.
Adamic Condemnation
Conversely, Bro. Roberts neither viewed it as eternal in its effect, nor with a moral connotation, nor legally entitling Adam’s descendants to a violent death. He clearly showed it to be a physical principle in Adam’s body which, subsequent to his transgression, became a physically-operating law determined by divine decree. Our condemnation in Adam is taught to be our inheritance of this same physically-operating law in our bodies because of the advent of sin into the world. This is clearly in accord with Romans 5:12, “For as by one man sin came into the world and death by sin, and so death hath passed upon all men (Greek ‘eis’ meaning`into’) for that all have sinned,” Bro. Roberts taught that we physically die as the result of our inheritance in Adam due to the original transgression, but that we remain in the grave only because of our own sins. In “The Slain Lamb” he said, “God will keep no man in the grave because of Adam’s sin if he himself be individually righteous.” Death to that man would be but a fleeting thing, a trivial obstacle to God in raising him to life due to his personally righteous life. (See Unity Book page 82). Both Bro. Roberts and Paul the Apostle attest that death as a physically-operating law is our natural inheritance as a result of Adam’s transgression. The added thought in Rom. 5:12 “For that all have sinned” is introduced by the Greek words “Eph hoi,” meaning “upon which”. They most likely indicate upon which combined basis of Adam transgressing, death entering the world, and death passing through into all men — that following upon this basis all have sinned. So that the original transgression contributes to the fact that we all sin. In combination with this, the added fact that death is transmitted to all is a part of the basis for drawing the same conclusion that all are sinners.
It does not essentially follow that Adam’s nature was changed so that death would enter the world. But we know for certain that if, previous to transgression, death was potentially possible, it only became CERTAIN by banishing our parents from access to the tree of life and leaving them to their own natural functions. For it was only upon the basis of transgression that death came, and that in consequence, our natural inheritance is this mortal body with no access to any physical tree of life. However, the nature of Adam before transgression is viewed by Bro. Roberts as uncertain detail which does not affect the fundamentals of our Faith. If brethren fail to see that condemnation is a fitting term to use in the above context, but subscribe to the contextual meaning, let us not insist upon their acceptance of the terms employed. Conversely, let them not protest against those who use it with the understanding, lest we all fall under the condemnation of 2 Tim. 2:14, “striving about words to no profit.”
The Law Of Condemnation Abrogated
This simple understanding of the (Physical) “law of condemnation”, alias our mortality inherited from Adam, forms the basis of Clause 8 of the B.A.S.F. This has been misaligned by “Watchman” but correctly explained by the wording of the Addendum, being entirely free of the individual condemnation that “Watchman” appears to attach to it. The simple truth is that Jesus by dying, annulled this physical law in so far as he himself was concerned. What more could it do once he was dead? Nothing. Could God suffer his holy one to see corruption? No. Unlike Adam, he was not permitted to return to dust, but God raised him, showing that the “law of condemnation” had no lasting effect upon him at all. Still, the flesh had been shown to be by divine appointment rightly related to death.
Adam’s personal condemnation was to return to dust; but Jesus had no personal condemnation at all, being sinless. The physical “law of condemnation” Jesus shared in common with us is completely impersonal; but unlike Jesus, we are permitted to turn to dust because of our own transgressions. The “law of condemnation” at work in our organisation fits into God’s plan as a perfectly natural means of ensuring the extinction of sinners such as ourselves, who, apart from Christ, would have no hope. But Jesus has annulled this “law of condemnation” for all those who come unto God by him. “There is therefore now no condemnation” which has them in view at all; which is the same thing as saying “there is no condemnation to them who are in Christ Jesus”. There is nothing which can be used as a personal down-judgment towards them. “The law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made us free from the law of sin and death” (Rom. 8:2). Do not let us confuse our personal lot outside of Christ with our natural inheritance from Adam styled “Adamic Condemnation”. Note John 3; 18-19: “He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. And this is the condemnation that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.”
The difference is also discernable in the following quotation, “The wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life” (Rom. 6:23). Herein death is viewed as that which we earn as wages. Note that it is expressed here, not in its outworking as a physical law of the body (as in Adamic condemnation) but as the opposite of life itself. It is the complete cessation of all functioning of the body. It is used here in a sense of finality and is more permanent in its application than is Romans 5:12, which concerns itself more with death as a physically-inherited law of our natures.
Christ’s Involvement In His Own Death
“Watchman” criticises our leaders in the literary field for their teaching upon Christ’s involvement in his own death. But once again he misrepresents them. In doing so, “Watchman” seems to ignore that Jesus was born for the express purpose of dying for every man. Jesus cannot be scripturally viewed apart from this purpose (Heb. 2:9). The name Jesus means that he shall save his people from their sins. The Bible only presents Jesus as saviour and always in relation to the death he would die in the purpose of God. We do not propose to consider Jesus in any other light, for confusion would be the inevitable result. To overstress on the other hand, Christ’s own benefits derived from his death gives a limited view of the sacrifice of our Lord. We must bear in mind at all times that his death on the tree was DESIGNED to atone for sin, our sins of our own committal (1 Cor. 15:3). Nevertheless, because of charges we believe to be false, we must take up the defensive on the lesser view. We propose to present Bro. Roberts’ own words in defence of his own position.
Brother Roberts was humble enough to admit the mistake of over-emphasising Christ’s involvement in his own death. In one of his last letters on the subject he says, “The mistake has been to confine attention too exclusively to Christ’s own part in the death on the cross. Christ died for us and therefore we cannot be excluded from the understanding of the event. That he died for himself is an involved element, but he did not die for himself in the same sense that he died for us, for he died for our sins.” He adds, “All that I have written on the subject during these twenty-five years of controversy is in harmony with the larger view, and where in any case it may appear to be otherwise, it is due to the varying pressure of error from various directions.” In the same article he maintained that, in addition to wearing our nature, he bore our sins. “The ceremonial condemnation of sin in the nature identical with that which transgressed in Eden is but a part of this larger view”, which he defines thus, “God laid on him the iniquities of us all. He was considered to be the bearer of the sin to be taken away; the antitypical Iamb of God which taketh away sins of the world. In the process of taking them away, he made them his own, in the sense of patiently enduring that which the Father had appointed as the condition of their forgiveness.” (“Christadelphian.” 1895 page 23).
He thus agrees with Dr. Thomas when explaining the meaning of “His own sins” in Heb. 7:27. Bro. Thomas said, “The sins committed by others and borne in his own body on the cross as testified in 1 Peter 2:24 saying `Who his own self bare our sins in his own body to the tree’.” (Christadelphian,” 1873 page 364).
It was Bro. Roberts’ incessant refusal to view Jesus apart from his mission that caused him to write so prolifically in the face of two major opponents in Christ’s own involvement in his death. On the other hand he was not nearly so extreme as “Watchman” would have us believe. Here are his words,
“In no sense was he liable to a violent death before his suspension on the cross. If it were at all lawful to consider his case separately from those he came to redeem, we might say that where all others from the weakness of the flesh had found the law to be unto death (Rom. 7:10, 8:3), Jesus would have found it unto life in his resurrection when the life of this mortal had with him terminated. For himself it was unnecessary that he should have been nailed to the tree except as a part of the obedience the Father required at his hands. It was for us he was thus slain: For this violent death was the penalty due for the many offences that hold us captive and which God laid upon him. His stripes were for our healing. But let it be observed that was not on the principle of substitution.” (“Christadelphian,” 1873 page 554).
Observe also that this was written in the heat of the Turney controversy. The pressure of error then stemming from the basis of “Free life” and “Uncondemned nature” should have produced the opposite extreme in refuting them if Bro. Roberts believed that atonement for Christ’s nature was necessary. But Bro. Roberts denied it then by the above quotation, and also twenty years later actually opposed it in the J. J. Andrew theory.
No Offering For Nature Required
So the sense in which Jesus offered for himself, has, to quote Bro. Roberts, been self-explained as obedience. Is it possible that our Bro.’s keen mind contradicted itself on such a salient point? I give him more credit than that, especially in view of the following:—
“The law was unto life, if the flesh had not been exceeding sinful as Paul says. Its powerlessness to give life lay in the weakness of the flesh. If it had been possible in any case to have rendered a spotless and perfect obedience, justice would not have required a violent death in that case. But apart from Christ there never was such a case.” (“Christadelphian,” 1874 page 40).
So we can safely conclude that Bro. Roberts did not teach that Christ’s violent death (involving the shedding of blood) was for himself, in the sense of offering to atone for his nature.
What then is the relevance of the statement quoted by “Watchman” thus, “It follows that there must be a sense in which Jesus offered for himself also, a sense which is apparent when it is recognised that he was under Adamic condemnation inhering in his flesh”?
Here is my own statement which I believe is close if not identical in meaning with the above:—”Jesus could not rely upon his own corrupting nature inherited from Adam, for the bestowal of life eternal, but only upon God through total obedience and compliance with His will, which designates all flesh to be as grass that fades as the flower of the field; a divine principle which Jesus recognised and demonstrated in his own death. His resurrection through obedience to divine principles and law demonstrated triumphantly that ‘the word of God liveth and abideth for ever’.” You will at least perceive a great measure of agreement between the two statements, without doing violence to the two former quotations from Bro. Roberts’ pen.
Let it be noted though, that I could not be tempted to use the same wording as Bro. Roberts, which can be interpreted in an unscriptural manner.
Clarity In The Addendum
The unity basis does not force us into using the same expressions as Bro. Roberts. Nor have we to be in complete harmony with him in every verbal expression on the subject of the atonement in order to accept the basis of unity. Note that it is a basis of unity and not uniformity. The fundamental issues in this respect have been clearly set out in the addendum with which my own statement in qualification of Bro. Roberts’ words is in complete harmony.
We have been asked by the Central Ecclesias to accept as a basis of unity that which is an attempt to state in simple, straight language what Brethren Cooper and Carter consider those clauses to mean (that is the clauses of the B.A.S.F. previously disputed). This implies that the clauses in question may not appear to some to be expressed as clearly as they could be (See Unity Book page 11).
The fundamental thought of Bro. Roberts contained in the statement he made is surely expressed by the words of the Addendum, “In his death he voluntarily declared God’s righteousness. -God was honoured, and the flesh shown to be by divine appointment rightly related to death”. Any attempt to compress the fundamental statement into the mould of ritual or ceremonial expressions used repeatedly by Bro. Roberts is reversing the very purpose of the addendum. Its purpose is to strip terms of their ambiguous, figurative or ceremonial dress and present the basic thought with clarity.
Yet this is what “Watchman” says we must do in order to be in harmony with what is intended. In reading him he really means his own extreme interpretation of what Bro. Roberts intended, which we have shown to be untrue.
The “Believer” magazine, at least, will vigorously oppose any attempt to press the addendum into any mould other than that of its own plain statements. Neither shall we make our brethren offenders for a word; and we will endeavour to avoid clichés of speech, slick labels and uncertain details, no matter how much they may have been used by our Pioneer brethren who often confessed their own fallibility.
In the same way the terms “Adamic condemnation”, “Law of condemnation”, “Unclean”, “condemnation of sin in the flesh” etc., have all their essential elements expressed in the clear language of the addendum.
Condemnation Of Sin In The Flesh
It follows also that the condemnation of sin in the flesh is not the condemnation of the physical nature by its destruction upon the cross, the false charge with which “Watchman” hammers at our basis of unity.
Contrariwise, Bro. Roberts puts it thus,
“God sent forth his son in the likeness (or strictly identicalness) of human flesh, that he might, in the body of flesh, through death, condemn sin in the eyes of all the world sin in the abstract; sin as the wont and rule of human nature EXCEPT in the specially prepared man in whom the sinful tendencies of the flesh were all held in check by the superior enlightening power with which he was clothed’.’ (“Christadelphian,” 1895 page 24).
He also denies that Jesus was condemned in the following words from “the Resurrection to Condemnation” page 45.
“It was not Christ that was condemned, but sin as represented by the nature that he possessed in common with us all. His death by public execution was a public exhibition of what was due to man from God, or as Paul expresses it, ‘a declaration of his righteousness’. It pleased him to require this before inviting men to reconciliation.”
So Sin In The Abstract was condemned by this RITUAL in which the nature shared in common with sinners was put to death. Bro. Roberts taught CEREMONIAL condemnation of sin in the flesh: not actual condemnation of Christ’s own body.
In the 1897 “Christadelphian,” page 495, he wrote,
“These things being debated over a number of years, according to the changing forms of the attacks of error, may appear to come into collision with each other, without the collision being real. The language of much is figurative and therefore elastic, and capable in a hostile treatment of being made to appear self-stultifactory.”
We believe that “Watchman” is either unaware of this, confused, or purposefully choosing to ignore its elasticity and figurative nature. I personally believe that there is good reason to be confused; as all have not access to the writings of Bro. Roberts on this subject, and often, in reading what is available, qualifying words are unfortunately overlooked. Hence the purpose of this article in trying to plainly state what has been misrepresented.
It is wise to always remember in reading both Brethren Roberts and Thomas that they firmly believed that the ritual symbology so often seen in the offerings made under the law is to a degree discernable in the sacrifice of Jesus. In fact all of us unconsciously use this symbology when quoting Scripture that the “blood of Jesus Christ cleanses us from sin”. Garments are made white by being “washed in the blood of the lamb”. Literally garments washed in lamb’s blood would be defiled. Used figuratively they are cleansed. In reality, the shed blood of Jesus who was led as a lamb to the slaughter, provides a basis, which, when acknowledged, brings God’s forgiveness of our sins. In the same way, do not let us confuse the imagery with reality, nor the ceremony or ritual with the lesson it is intended to teach us.
We feel constrained to voice our objection to another feature of “Watchman’s” writings. From time to time he makes remarks about the actions of committees and magazines which are not in accordance with fact, and infers motives for their actions which are not true.
For instance, in the latest issue, Series 4, No. 1, March 1973, he wrote, “The conflict heightened between the Logos and the C.S.C. groups with the visit to Australia of Brethren Marshall and Nicholls from the Christadelphian Publishing Office, who in turn saw fit to woo the C.S.C. group — despite their lenience towards the old Shield beliefs. This was a timely move on the part of the “Christadelphian” office…”
The inference of the last sentence is that the “Christadelphian” Office sent Brethren Marshall and Nicholls to Australia with the intention of influencing the Australian Brotherhood on behalf of the Office.
The facts are quite different. About three years ago, the Writer suggested that Bro. L. Sargent, on his retirement from the Editorship of “The Christadelphian”, be invited to Australia for a pastoral tour, taking sufficient time to visit ecclesias throughout the country. Sydney Central Ecclesia took up the suggestion, and passed it on to the Central Standing Committee, which sought support for the project from ecclesias throughout Australia. This was forthcoming. The C.S.C. invited Bro. Sargent to the slaughter, provides a basis, which, when acknowledged, brings God’s forgiveness of our sins. In the same way do not let us confuse the imagery with reality, nor thee ceremony or ritual with the lesson it is intended t0 teach us.
Fellowship with the Maker and Brethren